Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

RfC on countries/dependencies

I think we need to have the countries/territories/dependencies issue settled once for all.
Are territories and dependencies (full list from List of countries and dependencies by population: Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Macau, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Guam, Curaçao, Aruba, Jersey, U.S. Virgin Islands, Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Guernsey, American Samoa, Greenland, Northern Mariana Islands, Faroe Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Sint Maarten, Saint Martin, Gibraltar, British Virgin Islands, Åland Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Montserrat, Falkland Islands, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Niue, Tokelau, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Pitcairn Islands) as well as scarcely or not universally recognised countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia) to be included in their respective countries' counts or not?
As of now, two dependent territories (namely Hong Kong and Macau, so that China is referred to as "China (mainland)"), along with scarcely or not universally recognised countries are listes separately from their respective countries, others are not. The count is made more complicate by the fact that most sources (notably including Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by Johns Hopkins CSSE and Coronavirus Update - Worldometer) list all dependencies separately.
Please, have your say! --Checco (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• My guess is that we should be completely consistent with List of countries and dependencies by population and several other articles. In fact, in Wikipedia it is customary to list and/or consider territories and/or dependencies separately from respective countries for statistical purposes. Dependent territories are never included in their respective countries' counts. As a consequence, in our template mainland China should be referred simply as China. --Checco (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think that the territories and remote parts of countries should be considered separately. Unfortunately that means more lines in the table. But at least we can follow sources that we use. China has to have the "(mainland)" on it to prevent confusion, and this was heavily discussed in earlier weeks. Though I do not support use of "small" for it. We certainly need a consensus on it as there are many reversals on these entries, and confusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that earlier discussion Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 3#Guernsey clearly supported Guernsey (and possibly Jersey) as having its own entry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree on China, on both respects. Why should we add "mainland" here? In no other list, in which Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately, there is such thing as "mainland China". If "mainland" has to stay, let's have it smaller, at least. --Checco (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • The reason is that we avoid excessively small text as it is too hard to read for some. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Indeed. I would remove "mainland" or, at least, make it less evident. --Checco (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Removing "mainland" while listing it as such and parallel to HK and Macau would violate WP:NPOV.Rethliopuks (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Not at all. Hong Kong and Macau have a different status and, by the way, are on the mainland! It is "mainland" which is hardly NPOV and, indeed, it virtually never mentioned in lists in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
              • You're mistaken, my friend. "Mainland", perhaps confusingly, refers to the area claimed by PRC that excludes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. So, Macau is geographically part of the continent but it's not part of "Mainland", and Hainan which is a real island is. The reason? It's because "Mainland China" is a term propelled into existence by political needs rather than geographic. Rethliopuks (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
                • Again, this template is a strange exception in Wikipedia. Differently from here: 1) dependent territories are usually listed separately. 2) China is usually listed as "China" also in tables and lists where Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately. Big inconsistency! Again, just take a look to List of countries and dependencies by population --Checco (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
                  • I think the issue here is that we're counting. It's clearly ridiculous to say that there's a "mainland China" as a country, as much as it is to state that there exists "the British Islands" or "Contiguous United States" as a country; at the very least, such a claim would definitely violate WP:NPOV. Even listing them as territories instead of their respective countries would violate WP:NPOV. However, it's a different matter when we need to actually count numbers on parts of land. Imagine using "United States" to only include the lower 48 or "France" to exclude Corsica -- that would be an unexpected thing to do. But our statistics is so, then we must make a note that we do not refer to the entire PRC (or US or France) but which parts of it, one way or another -- it's either going to be "China" with a note or "mainland China". I prefer the latter. Rethliopuks (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
                    • You are probably not aware of what dependent territories are. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• We need to discuss few criteria, independantly otherwise democracy is a MESS.
  Populations: Every political area with population >1~5 million should be included. Micro states (Andorra, Vatican, etc) shouldn't.
  Status / Dependencies: territories should be attached to the de facto highest authority, judged by tax flow, police, army. Thereby: most dependencies will be attached to their upper authority as a 'province/region/...'.
  Scarcely or not universally recognized countries if population is notable >1~5 millions, fiscally, militarily independent : Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia.
  Core idea => We don't do politics, a reporting authority is included ; We reduce to highest reporting autority (Island of Man => UK, etc) ; we push away micro-micro-state. Yug (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably a bad idea to exclude any state for its population, because this is supposed to be a global count. Rethliopuks (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• The problem I see is when a territory whose de facto sovereignty is widely disputed and when the territory has yet been added. Thus Taiwan is not an issue because the scheme is mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan -- listing four regions thus circumventing the sovereignty issue. One present problem is Northern Cyprus: the territory has now seen confirmed cases, so as a global count the cases should be included. Do we have a WP:NPOV solution that allows listing the cases in the territory one way or another? Rethliopuks (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus should be included as a separate line… Cyprus is not including the Northern Cyprus cases in its reports, and it makes no sense to completely exclude Northern Cyprus from the table (the cases still exist). The issue with dependencies is unrelated as they are not independent (recognised or unrecognised) and (most?) are not claiming to be so their totals are generally included in the main country’s reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.220.109 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Northern Cyprus should be listed separately, it can be put in italics or something, but we can't just exclude its cases Extended Cut (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the numbers are patients under health authority's control, what should be showed is which health authority is actually overall responsible for that patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.47.172 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• List of countries by population (United Nations) is another list.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Not all countries are recognised by the UN and/or are members of it. And, by the way, also in that list dependent territories are listed separately from their respective countries and China is listed as just "China" (even though Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately). Thanks, User:Selfstudier for your point! --Checco (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

193 UN member states (+2 non member observer states) and 233 in that list (you can reconcile it with the other one, some are in, some are not).Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Are numbers from Puerto Rico counted twice? It says that US cases include Puerto Rico's, yet it's still listed separately.Extended Cut (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Philosophical reflections

• Purpose: The main purpose of Wikipedia in general, and the current article in particular, would - in my opinion - be to share information with one another. That said, any message involves choices, as to sending it, its subject, its content, its wording, its degree of clarity / vagueness, etc.
• Neutrality: Already in those choices, neutrality is / can be lost. In the particular case under discussion here, ceases to exits at the latest as soon as at least one person disputes the borders and/or naming of an area on the globe.
• Information: I would define information as any both well-defined and true (part of the) contents of a message about facts and circumstances, or else any well-defined and well-documented (i.e. by a clearly described and available source) contents of a message about facts and circumstances, possibly with an assessment of the accuracy.
• Availability: We can only send / share messages about information that is available. It appears to me that for numbers of infected (total and/or current), recovered, succumbed for sizable parts of the world, we depend on numbers made available / published by the sources / authorities that have access to (qualitatively) good measurements thereof.
• Division: As long as for a well-defined division of the world (country, province, etc.) one authority reports in a well-defined and clear way and is not (substantially) contradicted by another authority with at least an equal level of trustworthiness (and in assessing substantiality and trustworthiness, neutrality may be (partially) lost), using messages (here: numbers of infected, recovered, succumbed) published by that authority seems to be the best possible way of showing such numbers for this well-defined division in a table. Things get more complicated when several authorities / sources claim to be leading, but I doubt whether that is a major issue at this point in time for most of the divisions. I would say that the (kind of) divisions are ultimately dictated by the authorities / sources that execute and report about measurements, whatever the divisions are that they choose to report on, and whatever the levels of quality and neutrality underlying these divisions and numbers. Of course, we are free to discuss the quality of the numbers, but I see no point in choosing any other divisions of the world than are chosen by the (reporting) authorities / sources as long as we do not have data about different divisions at our disposal.
• I would therefore suggest that the one(s) who are willing and prepared to share messages about case numbers in a table use the numbers published by authorities for the well-defined division(s) they report for in a clear way. The resolution (e.g. country, province, state, municipality) is a matter of choice, as long as a credible (again: risk of loosing neutrality) source reports on a division of a particular resolution.

Practical implications for the countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are proposed to be as follows. The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of four separate countries, namely:

• (the country of) the Netherlands;
• Aruba;
• Curaçao;
• Sint Maarten.

In turn, (the country of) the Netherlands consist(s) of:

• the European Netherlands;
• the Caribbean Netherlands,

and the Caribbean Netherlands in their turn consist of three public bodies somewhat similar to municipalities, namely:

• Bonaire;
• Sint Eustatius;
• Saba.

For (the country of) the Netherlands, the (main; again: neutrality may be lost in interpreting this adjective) reporting authority is the RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). It reports for the well-defined division (the country of) the Netherlands, therefore excluding Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. I cannot find any (clear) indication that its scope would be different from this, nor have I seen it provided by the one(s) who have/has added a text saying that the numbers for Aruba and Curaçao would be included in those for the Netherlands.

Furthermore:

• Aruba has its own Directie Volksgezondheid. Please refer to e.g. https://www.overheid.aw/home-ned/departementen_46763/letter/D/ and https://www.facebook.com/pg/desparuba/posts/.
• Curaçao has its own Volksgezondheid Instituut Curaçao. Please refer to e.g. https://vic.cw/pap.
• Sint Maarten has its own Department of Public Health. Please refer to e.g. http://www.sintmaartengov.org/GOVERNMENT/VSA/PUBLIC-HEALTH/Pages/default.aspx.

For these reasons I propose using the RIVM-numbers with respect to (the country of) the Netherlands - including Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba - only (and excluding the three other kingdom partners Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten besides (the country of) the Netherlands), and separate entries and numbers for any cases in these three other countries as soon as they are reported by the appropriate (another judgment case) authorities. I am not aware of any parties disputing the de facto control and authority of the four governmental organizations mentioned.

The Netherlands do not count recoveries.Redav (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Taiwan should stay separate as they have a different government have carried out very different actions, etc. I think this is a case by case issue. Not something that can be solved by some overall rule. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I may actually have to retrace my steps a bit. I have come to an understanding of how practically helpful a COVID-19 cases data table could be that corresponds to a standard list of divisions (i.e. countries, territories, etc.) that may not fully correspond to areas of responsibility of certain (public health) authorities. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic. There seem to be several options. One is using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population, but that list seems to be in need of changes to its handling or and handling of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and its four constituent countries in a consistent way. (The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the four constituent countries Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and (the country of) the Netherlands.) Another option is using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations), where these four constituent countries seem to be treated in a consistent way. The need for a clear reference to the sources, and - if appropriate - data numbers that are aggregates of e.g. the numbers for the four constituent countries in the case of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.Redav (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Several times some(one) has/have reverted input concerning both essential and accurate information with respect to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and its four constituent countries and data for it, that I supplied together with explanations. Can s/he please indicate why this input would be unnecessary content?Redav (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Half collapsing this template

Am asking around

To see if any one has solutions to half collapsing or adding scrolling that would work... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay this works well on desktop, mobile, and in the app User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid One can swipe left and right to see the edges. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It works on desktop and tiny screen. But if we have scrollable, I suggest no default collapsed bits like notes. If you click on a note nothing happens if it is collapsed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with that User:Graeme Bartlett. You want to make the change? I am unable to figure out how. By the way it opens for me on desktop. And I see it open by default on mobile. I also see it as open by default in the app. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

While it seems to work well enough in the sandbox, on all of my Mac, Windows, and Android OS the entire left side of the box is cut off, icons and all scrolling left and right does not work. Perhaps looking to the past can provide a solution for today. During the 2009 flu pandemic the Template:2009 flu pandemic data was used and that template then provided the link to the data by country. Given the fluid nature of this event and the constant editing, perhaps a top 10 could be used in a condensed version, with the link provided to all the countries and territories a la the 2009 pandemic data box. Krazytea(talk) 05:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Krazytea What browser are you on and can you provide screen shots? It works fine on a windows machine running chrome. And on an android phone (both mobile and app). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I am using Firefox and the Wikipedia App on Android. Krazytea(talk) 05:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay try now User:Krazytea. I have now adjusted it and it works for me on Firefox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, for [1], the reason i had padding on the right, is that some browsers (in particular firefox desktop on linux) take out space for the scrollbar, and things get cut-off without some padding (I have no idea how much padding is appropriate though, the amount i chose was probably unideal). Bawolff (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox works OK for me on Android - with firefox mobile, chrome mobile and chrome desktop (though here is is quite small, but zoomable). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out by Krazytea above, Template:2009 flu pandemic data shows the perfect way to summarize the data in the pandemic main article. Cases by continents and economic regions and worldwide cases (grand totals), and maybe a few top countries, with a link to further information: Cases and deaths by country. Regardless, too much statistical data (e.g. excessively long tables to impede the readability of the main article) is against policy (WP:NOTSTATS). Being scrollable doesn't solve the problem because it hinders printability and has accessibility issues. Zarex (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Support suggestion by Krazytea and Zarex. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess I do not. I quite prefer the current format, but I am proposing improvements too (see below). --Checco (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not like the Flu layout either. People want to know what is happening in their country. I know that I want to know what is happening in my country. Lumping Canada, the US and Mexico together makes no sense.

With respect to accessibility / printibility. Can we have a button within the template that takes a person to the full version without scroll? Or has the scrollable version change to the full version? User:Bawolff Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

hmm. For printability, we could maybe use TemplateStyles so it doesnt scroll when printing. Bawolff (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a new version that should print better, and has a button to expand all - User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid. Thoughts? Bawolff (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bawolff: The button to expand is nice but in Firefox there is a horizontal scrollbar and the vertical borders in the second header row are missing (between Countries, Cases, Deaths, Recoveries and Refs). Zarex (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zarex: I tried to add more padding so the vertical scrollbar doesn't show up, which worked in my testing but might not work everywhere (It seems like firefox requires the extra room, where chrome doesn't, and how much room a scrollbar takes up seems a bit unpredictable). I had trouble making the top border show up in both chrome and firefox. I found a way that works in chrome but not firefox, and a way that works in firefox but not chrome. Nonetheless, I think my new version is a lot better. Bawolff (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This looks great. Exactly what I was looking for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Another thing that might make sense, is word wrapping the country columns (But only if you are on a small screen). I tried to do that in my sandbox [2] (View on a small screen width). Honestly, it didn't really help as much as i thought it would. Bawolff (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Further improvements

I quite like the scrollable box, but the header should be fixed. What do you guys think?
Secondly, what about reducing the first column's width, in order to make the table more readable also for smartphone users.
Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you want to fix the header User:Checco?

Yes we should reduce the first column's width. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess we can keep the header stable, so that it is not scrolled down. --Checco (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If we do have horizontal scrolling, maybe the flags should also be fixed - that would allow keeping track of what country well also not taking up a lot of room. Anyways, i did a version in my sandbox where the top headers (not the flags) are fixed, although it seems like some mobile browsers don't support it: User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid. Bawolff (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for collapsing this table. Much too large otherwise. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Broken Again

For me, this is the last fully readable version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&oldid=945630678 edit notes describe the next as "fixed." 138.88.18.245 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

For me, things get considerable worse with this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&oldid=945711573 edit notes describe this as "At least make it so that you don't have to scroll horizontally" but it chops it off halfway through "cases" unless users find a way to scroll horizontally. And scrolling part of the window without the rest can trigger migraines. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Revised template

Following a request from User:Doc James I have made a simpler to use template: it is at User:Rich Farmbrough/2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC).

Thanks User:Rich Farmbrough will review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We will need a way to add references aswell. We change the references as we update the data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"show all" expands. When expanded, could it be replaced by "show fewer" like "show"/"hide" ?

|-
! colspan="6" | <div class="covid-show-table">[[#covid19-container|[show all]]]</div>{{Navbar-collapsible|{{resize|85%|{{Nowrap|[[2019–20 coronavirus pandemic]] by [[2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory|country and territory]]}}}}|Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}}

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:T3g5JZ50GLq excellent idea. Have you tested it on desktop / mobile / chrome and firefox? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is what should the text say as the "hide" text. Hide doesn't seem right as its just making it scroll and not hide. Bawolff (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Scrolling no longer working

User:Bawolff you able to fix? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The scrollbars got reverted at [3]. Bawolff (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Scrolling

I saw that User:Koavf recently removed the scrollbars [4] out of WP:ACCESSIBLE concerns. However, the WP:ACCESSIBLE page simply states that "Wikipedia articles should be accessible to readers using browsers and devices that have limited or no support for JavaScript or Cascading Style Sheets". Browsers that don't support CSS would simply display the full table. Additionally there is a toggle button where people can disable the scrollbars if they don't want them. The scrollbars were also tested to work on the mobile site and app. There is also an accessibility cost to showing a very large table all at once. Anyways, i don't think the rationale behind WP:ACCESSIBLE applies here, and I don't think that the scrollbars in practice introduce any accessibility issues for anyone. I'd like to suggest the scroll bars be added back in. Bawolff (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bawolff. Have reverted them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, Per MOS:SCROLL and Help:Scrolling list says to not use scrolling lists in article space. "This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." We cannot use scrolling lists in a table in the article namespace. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We also have WP:IAR. Lots of people here are supportive of scrolling. Your first link does not work.

I assume you mean Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the rationale behind that page or any sort of source for the accessibility claims, or what "devices" the concern is about. The closest i could find is Template:Scrollref TfD, where the concern was about printing, but that doesn't apply here as the full table is shown when printing due to a print stylesheet (You can test with print preview in browser). Bawolff (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I did, thanks. IAR is not an acceptable excuse for making inaccessible content. I'm frankly shocked that a medical professional would make that argument. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not described how this makes the content inaccessible. In fact not doing it makes the page less accessible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

So it says "When such features are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS[5], and to the 45% (and climbing) of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site,[o] which has a limited set of features. Mobile ability to access the content in question is easy to test with the "Mobile view" link at the bottom of each page.[p]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, "Scrolling lists should not used in article space. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." is very explicit. I don't know why you are trying to argue around it. If it's a bad rule, then let's get rid of the rule. Nothing is special about this article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also removing scrolling is interfering with solving https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247702 problem, by making an unstable target to work on. We have previously agreed on having scrolling, and have bypassed some of the negatives. So any bold changes here will need a consensus first. One point of the scrolloing is to make it more accessible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That is the Help:Scrolling list not the MOS on scrolling which makes no such claim. And yes their can be exceptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf describe how this harms accessibility and we can work to address that. I would argue that it improves accessibility. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, For whom is accessibility improved, James? Internal scrolling is difficult for users with particular needs when it comes to interfacing with the content: e.g. if they have difficult controlling a mouse and so may use voice commands or a specialized browser that is not going to be able to scroll internal in a page. How could internal scrolling increase accessibility to anyone, particularly these users? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Koavf so you are specifically looking at people who use screen readers and you want to make sure that this works for that group of individuals?

Or just those who use "voice commands or a specialized browser"? If so we should reach out to these individuals and see what they need. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, That is my understanding, based on my limited understanding of accessibility. I am not an expert, so I defer to what I know are the best practices. Rather than try to find everyone to post screenshots on Phabricator and hope that we aren't missing anyone (the sort of person who can't actually read this article is probably not going to be the sort of person who takes all of the extra effort to post why/how and tell everyone else how to fix it), I'm asking you as a fellow Wikimedian who has provided a lot of value to this site for years, an admin who is trusted to have best judgement about how to enforce the norms of this community, and a medical professional whom I am sure wants nothing better than the best outcomes for everyone to please revert yourself for the benefit of those persons who will be impacted by your decision to ignore the best practices about internal scrolling. Additionally, I have asked you questions that you ignored and I would appreciate you answering them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I just realized that there is pre-collapsed content and a button to "show all". As MOS:SCROLL points out, this is the exact opposite of what should happen: the content should be rendered and then have the option to collapse it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Koavf if you are not an expert who do you suggest we reach out to? User:RexxS does a lot of work around accessibility. Rexx you have thoughts? As User:Graeme Bartlett states not having scrolling is also an accessibility issue. We really want this to work for everyone. We currently have technical support helping to solve any issues with respect to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The show-all button just gets rid of the scroll bars. Nothing is "collapsed". Bawolff (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your question was "how does scrolling improve accessibility for anyone"? Well with the table at nearly 200 rows it creates a great deal of white space on a narrow screen pushing content lower in the article and thus making it harder to get too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, That may be a usability issue but I'm not seeing an accessibility dimension here to there being white space. It's an annoyance and not aesthetically pleasing but it doesn't prohibit access to anyone based on a different cognitive ability, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, Thank you for asking and for seeking some feedback: I respect that you're putting in effort into this. I don't collaborate with anyone on accessibility here and in fact, I frequently have to fight solo over and over again to get basic accessibility into articles and templates (e.g. table captions). It seems like Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility is a good place to go shopping. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf okay I will ask there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note, from googling, the internet seems to say, scrollable things are ok, as long as they have tabindex=0 (so they are focusable and scrollable with keyboard) and label-aria. Which User:Volker E. (WMF) (indirectly via editrequest) got added to the template. Edit: The tabindex doesn't work due to MW banning that attribute (phab:T247910). However firefox still considers it a focusable element, so its all ok in firefox at least. Bawolff (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf my request of you is to help us solve the accessibility issues of scrolling so that they are no longer an issue. Would you not agree that this would be win win? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay I have reached out to people on FB for someone who uses voice commands. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, I don't know that there can be internal scrolling that is accessible. I do think that a broader best practice should be considered but that's not on the level of this one single template but the level of the MOS and help page mentioned above: that way, it's applicable to the whole encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should give the tech folks a chance to work on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, can I request that we don't go back-and-forth editing the CSS in and out while this is under discussion, please? It would be helpful if we can see the template with scroll bars just for the purposes of checking whether we are creating accessibility problems by adding them.

The way I would usually tackle accessibility concerns is to try to simulate the experience of a possible disadvantaged user:

• I can confirm that none of the screen readers I use to check have any problems with the table, which is expected, as they generally take no notice of CSS and the table is properly marked up with column and row headers and scopes. We could be more certain if we asked Graham87 to have a look at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data and make sure that he can read the entire table and the accompanying notes.
• I can confirm that on Chrome and Firefox, I am able to focus the links in the table using just the keyboard, and so am able to read the entire table and notes without the use of a mouse.
• I can confirm that on my mobile phone (a fairly generic Android device), I see the entire table without scroll bars, so there is no issue for me there.

That leads me to suggest that there probably isn't any class of disadvantaged user that those scroll bars cause problems for. I'm coming round to the view that our guidance at MOS:SCROLL is being taken rather too mechanically at Help:Scrolling list. MOS:SCROLL requires us to "take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, and to the 45% (and climbing) of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site". It looks to me like the template developers have done their due diligence in this case, and I believe that we don't need to invoke IAR to show that this template is a reasonable exception to the general injunction not to use scrolling lists in article space. Of course, that's just my opinion, and someone may yet find a group of users that I hadn't considered, who are disadvantaged by the scroll bars, so perhaps we should keep the issue under review for a while, and await any reports of readers finding problems with the template before coming to a final decision. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RexxS: Just to confirm, are you talking about the mobile site or mobile app? There should be scrolling on mobile website [6], but not the mobile app [7]. Bawolff (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Voice readers don't work here.....and mobile view is not readable.--Moxy 🍁 00:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bawolff: Unfortunately, using mobile view on a desktop machine often does not accurately reflect what is seen when viewing a Wikipedia page on a mobile device. I agree that viewing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data using Chrome on my desktop machine shows scroll bars. However, actually viewing that page on my Android phone using 'Chrome for mobile' shows no scroll bars as they are particularly pointless on mobile phones. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Change 41 to 50 cases in Costa Rica Source: Costa Rican Ministry of Health Official Website https://www.ministeriodesalud.go.cr/index.php/centro-de-prensa/noticias/741-noticias-2020/1573-casos-confirmados-covid-19-llegan-a-los-50 Edacunav (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the source! RayDeeUx (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

Panama has 86 confirmed cases. Change 69 to 86. Source: https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/Panama-registra-confirmados-coronavirus-sancionado_0_5535196515.html 190.219.162.190 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)